This text includes characters that require UTF-8 (Unicode) file encoding:
ā ē ī ō ū Ā Ē Ī Ō Ū vowels with macron or “long” mark
ĕ ĭ ŏ vowels with breve or “short” mark (very rare)
If any of these characters do not display properly—in particular, if the diacritic does not appear directly above the letter—or if the apostrophes and quotation marks in this paragraph appear as garbage, you may have an incompatible browser or unavailable fonts. First, make sure that the browser’s “character set” or “file encoding” is set to Unicode (UTF-8). You may also need to change your browser’s default font.
As explained in the editor’s Introductory Note, readings are given in two forms. For this e-text, line breaks and numbers were retained in the simplified version for use with the Notes. In the unchanged version, each chapter is a single paragraph.
The recent discovery of a work of Aristotle has interested and delighted the whole learned world; but one may venture to say that if, instead, a book had been found written in the best period of the Latin language for the amusement or instruction of youth, by some Roman De Foe, or Goldsmith, or Lamb, or Burnett, there would be ten times the reason for rejoicing. Unhappily there is no likelihood that we shall ever congratulate ourselves on such a “find,” for probably no such work ever existed. What a misfortune that it did not occur to Cicero to divert himself in some leisure hour by writing a story for Roman youth! Millions of boys and girls in these later ages would have had good reason to bless his name. Cæsar could have done it; but to him, too, the gods denied such an inspiration, and we must suffer for it. Seeing that he had composed a treatise on Latin Grammar, one almost wonders that a mind so original and fertile should not have conceived the idea of adapting his Gallic War, or some part of it, to the powers and comprehension of youth. What measureless gratitude would he not have won from unborn generations of schoolmasters, who have now to struggle desperately and often unavailingly to make clear to their pupils the meaning of his intricate periods, and untwist the strands of his knotty syntax!
Cæsar is a difficult author. Some parts of his Gallic War are as hard, or nearly as hard, as any prose Latin that has come down to us. Yet it has somehow strangely enough become the fashion to read that work first in a Latin course. My own conviction is that for young learners a year’s reading in easier Latin is not too much before taking up the less difficult books of the Gallic War. Even then the transition to Cæsar comes with something of a shock; for the learner is soon and often brought face to face with sentences that seem to him of most bewildering intricacy, however they may, as commentators sometimes remark, beautifully illustrate most important principles of Latin order and construction. There is a sentence in the second book, by no means the most difficult one to be found, that extends through eighteen lines,—that is, something more than half a page,—containing twenty-one distinct ideas, and having the verb separated from its subject by ninety-four words.
I know no more disheartening task than that of undertaking to carry a class unprepared in age and knowledge of the language through Cæsar’s Gallic War. Yet it is precisely this disheartening task that thousands of teachers are set to do, or set themselves to do, every year. The results are often dismal enough. Teachers are blamed, they blame themselves, they blame their pupils. Pupils may sometimes be stupid, teachers may lack knowledge of the language and the subject, but the fault may also lie wholly with the author or with the Latin language itself; if with the latter, there is no help. Latin, it must be confessed, is an exceedingly difficult language to learn. All the more reason then why, in attacking it, every unnecessary obstacle should be removed. We should make our approaches with caution and skill; we should take it, if possible, aperto latere. We should not begin with a difficult work; or if, in the dearth of Latin suited to the juvenile mind, this is deemed unavoidable, common sense suggests the query, why not remove provisionally1 from the text those more intricate parts that discourage the learner and bar the way of progress?
Cæsar knew how to write his own language well; but he wrote for men, he wrote with compression and in haste, and there are passages in his works that are tough reading for a good Latin scholar. It is the fashion to praise Cæsar’s lucidity; but brevity and haste are not conducive to lucidity.
“Ther nys no werkman, what so ever he be,
That may bothe werke wel, and hastily.
This wol be doon at leyser parfitly.”
For my part I confess that I sometimes find him obscure. Moreover, when I am in doubt as to his meaning and appeal to the commentators, I find that they generally disagree and sometimes quarrel about the sense. Therefore to put young learners to reading Cæsar as his text stands, bristling with difficulties, before they have acquired anything more than a meagre vocabulary and gained a modicum of insight by some practice in reading easier Latin, is to set them at a task harder than that which Pharaoh set the Israelites.
I am of the opinion that, even when a fair working vocabulary has been acquired through some previous reading, there is no book of the Gallic War that does not require a certain degree of simplification to bring it to the level of the powers of young boys and girls. It is this conviction born of long observation of the vexation of spirit, discouragement, and waste of time by pupils in wrestling with difficulties that inevitably floor them, that has prompted me to put my hand to this work, which, slight as it may seem, has cost me the leisure of many months. But I shall feel repaid tenfold, if, through this little book, boys and girls are enabled to read Cæsar with less waste of time, more easily, with fresher interest, and added sense of power; if, in other words, it proves in reality what it is in name, a Gate to Cæsar.
A few words will be sufficient to explain the principle on which I have simplified Cæsar’s text, the amount of excision, and the degree of change. It would have been a comparatively easy task to simplify the text by the mere process of omission, never deviating from the ipsissima verba of the author by so much as the change of a mode or tense. One could do this and still string together the disjecta membra of the text into something like a connected narrative. But that would be to preserve the integrity of the words at the expense of everything else,—inner relation, structure, style, spirit. Or the simplification might be effected by a virtual rewriting of the text, by amplification rather than suppression, coupled with changes in the collocation of words, where the arrangement seemed to obscure the meaning and perplex the learner.
My purpose and plan differed essentially from both these methods. My aim has been, first, to keep the narrative intact; second, to retain as much of the text as was consistent with the effort to disburden it of its greater difficulties; third, to make the fewest practicable changes in what was retained, save the modification of some verb forms, and the occasional rendering of indirect into direct discourse; fourth, very rarely to change the position of a word; finally, never to insert a word, except now and then to supply a form plainly understood, or to introduce some connective, like et, tum, itaque, autem, ergo, postremo.
As to the amount of excision, I find that I have omitted almost exactly one-fifth of Cæsar’s text.
If the beginner in Cæsar reads the simplified text and concurrently turns the Exercises into Latin, laying firm hold of the grammatical principles selected for illustration, I believe he will find the remaining difficulties of the original text not beyond his scope. I should even hope that he would then read with something of the joy of conscious power. If the reading of the texts and the writing of the Exercises should require more time than is usually spent on the second book of Cæsar, which, however, I doubt, I believe subsequent progress would still be rapid and satisfactory enough to amount to a net gain and saving of time.
It has seemed best to mark long vowels, except the vowels of final syllables and of monosyllables, the rules for which can be readily learned. I have, however, marked a few monosyllables, as a constant reminder to teachers who find their old pronunciation clinging to certain words. We used to say hĭs, sĭc, nŏn, quĭn, hŏc. These words, therefore, I have marked. On the other hand, one is in no danger of saying dĕ, hĭ, sĭ, prŏ, for old habit would not mislead.
I take pleasure in acknowledging my obligations to Mr. Alfred G. Rolfe for several useful criticisms, and to Miss Caroline Ober Stone for valuable corrections and for carefully reading the proof-sheets as far as the vocabularies. To Mr. Clarence W. Gleason I am specially indebted. But for his timely and generous aid in preparing both vocabularies, the publication of this book must have been very considerably delayed.
WILLIAM C. COLLAR.
Seaconnet, July 25, 1891.
1 It is presumed that the learner will subsequently read the complete text.
| page | |
| Introductory Note | x |
| Simplified Text | 1-22 |
| Complete Text | 23-41 |
| Notes on Both Texts | 43-71 |
| Exercises on Simplified Text | 73-88 |
| Vocabulary | 89-123 |
| Etymological Vocabulary | 125-141 |
The Simplified Text and the Exercises based upon it are of the first importance. The viva voce translation of the Exercises, followed by the writing of them, will illustrate and help to implant in the memory the most important principles of syntax met with in the text. Let the teacher insist upon thorough work here, and he may safely omit other syntactical instruction.
But little power of reading Latin can be gained without making the acquisition of a working vocabulary a distinct object. The Latin synonyms and the Etymological Vocabulary may be made useful agents to that end. If the words added to each chapter are read aloud, reviewed, and compared where backward references are made, the learner will acquire a useful stock of synonyms easily, naturally, and with small expenditure of time.
It is often easier to retain in mind a number of words, grouped according to some principle of similarity or contrast, than a single word with nothing to hook it to the memory. For this reason it is recommended that the Etymological Vocabulary be often pressed into the service. Suppose, for example, the word conspectus occurs in the lesson. If the teacher will turn to page 138 and have the ten words read out under the root SPEC, he will multiply several times the chances that this particular word will be remembered on its next occurrence. He will have done much more. He will have increased the chances that nine other words will be lodged in the memory; and to each one a fresh interest will be added by its being seen in relation, not as an isolated, and therefore barren, fact.
The first vocabulary may be used for comparing in the text the different meanings and uses of the same word. It is through such comparisons that one gets at the heart and spirit of the language, while cultivating at the same time a mental habit of great value.
Having read the Simplified Text, the learner should be well equipped for wrestling with the difficulties that remain in the unchanged text, for he is already familiar with the thought and the language. Comparison of the two texts by the teacher, so far as time permits, may now be made to illustrate important principles, as of indirect discourse, which are here and there discussed in the notes.
In the Simplified and Complete texts, each chapter number is a link to the corresponding chapter of the other version.